Tutor has been demonized by his critics for initially bidding low for projects and then adjusting the cost upward, a practice called change-order contracting. In 1992, then-Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley said Tutor was “the greatest change-order artist I’ve ever seen.” A report last year by The Bay Citizen found that 11 projects overseen by Tutor in the Bay Area exceeded their costs by a collective $765 million...Tutor’s bid for the Central Subway contract---which includes the construction of three train stations---was $27 million lower than the next-closest firm. By law, the transit agency is obligated to accept the “lowest and most responsible bidder.”

Based on its history of deceptive bidding, the MTA board could have rejected Tutor Perini's bid as not by a "responsible bidder." But the Examiner tells us why they didn't do that:

Director Tom Nolan, president of the transit agency’s board, said he was aware of Tutor’s reputation for change orders but did not know about Herrera’s lawsuit. “This is far from perfect,” Nolan said. “But putting this out to bid again would have put us way behind schedule.”

Hey, no one's perfect! Allowing Perini Tutor to rip off city taxpayers---like it has in the past---is the price the city pays to keep this project "on schedule."

Recall that the Central Subway was part of Proposition K on the 2003 ballot---the sales tax measure that brings in more than $80 million a year, adminstered by the SFCTA, supposedly to pay for city transportation and "improvements" to city streets (the SFCTA pays for Bike to Work Day, for example).

Voters were told in 2003 that the Central Subway would cost $647 million; the price tag is now officially at $1.6 billion and counting.

The Examiner reporter, Will Reisman, did some digging:

Tutor was unable to respond to requests for comment Thursday. But in August 2012, when asked similar questions about his involvement with San Francisco and his history of change orders, Tutor said, “I have a great working relationship with Muni and my track record on change orders is no different than any other large contractor.”

Tutor is right about that. As the authors of "Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition"---which I highly recommend---tell us, large projects are typically launched based not on honest bidding mistakes but on lies by contractors:

"Cost underestimation
and overrun cannot be explained by error and seem to be best explained by
strategic misrepresentation, namely lying, with a view to getting projects
started." (page 16)The authors of Megaprojects and Risk examined hundreds of big projects in 20 countries, including the Chunnel: "Promoters of multi-billion dollar land-use development megaprojects
systematically misinform parliaments, the public and the media in order to get
them approved and built." They don't discuss California's high-speed rail project in the book, but it fits their analysis perfectly, since it's always been based on misinformation.

1 Comments:

Boston's Big Dig project was to cost $2.8 Billion. It is projected to ultimately cost $22 Billion. It had the usual delays, overruns, fraud, and corruption. Big projects and burying things are expensive.